W.D.Va.: Stopping ptf for giving cop “the finger” violates clearly established 4A law

Stopping plaintiff merely for giving a police officer the finger violates clearly established Fourth Amendment law. Clark v. Coleman, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136749 (W.D. Va. Aug. 14, 2018):

Applying the Saucier factors to the present case, Plaintiff’s evidence establishes, at this stage, that he was subjected to an unconstitutional seizure by Coleman. As stated above, Plaintiff’s evidence, taken as true, shows that Coleman effected a traffic stop—a seizure under the Fourth Amendment—without probable cause or reasonable suspicion. He did so after being party to a conversation about “tak[ing] down” Plaintiff. The evidence thus establishes that Plaintiff has “shown a violation of a constitutional right ….” Brown, 876 F.3d at 641 (citing Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201).

Turning to the question of whether the right was clearly established: it is axiomatic that an individual has the right to be free from unreasonable seizures in the absence of probable cause. But, “if the test of ‘clearly established law’ were to be applied at this level of generality, … plaintiffs would be able to convert the rule of qualified immunity … into a rule of virtually unqualified liability.” Gooden v. Howard Cnty., 954 F.2d 960, 968 (4th Cir. 1992) (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639, 107 S. Ct. 3034, 97 L. Ed. 2d 523 (1987)). The appropriate question, therefore, is whether a sheriff’s deputy may perform a traffic stop on a person without cause, whether or not the individual displayed an offensive gesture to the officer.

If Plaintiff did not “gig” Coleman, then there is no question that the right to be free from a traffic stop without probable cause was clearly established at the time Coleman stopped Plaintiff and his sister. There is no dispute that the authority to detain citizens, conferred on deputy sheriffs, does not include the power to harass and intimidate those with whom one disagrees. See Trulock v. Freeh, 275 F.3d 391, 405 n.10 (4th Cir. 2001) (noting that “police officers … may not exercise their authority for personal motives, particularly in response to real or perceived slights to their dignity”). Under that factual scenario, Coleman is not entitled to qualified immunity. But even if Plaintiff did “gig” Coleman, I believe the law clearly establishes that a traffic stop under those circumstances would not comport with the First or Fourth Amendments.